Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee

this actor is a very funny and talented actor he act younger than his age I love love his love stories it's always making sense

source: Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee

When the government of America's European settlers defeated the indigenous population, they didn't directly massacre or enslave them (at least, not in every case). The signed a treaty with the defeated Sioux that granted them land, and when they wanted some of this back, offered to pay for it. Senator Henry Dawes, architect of this deal, saw himself as a great friend on the Indians (as opposed to those who considered them sub-human); he was offering them civilisation. However, anthropologist Marvin Harris has suggested that the process of civilisation is not so much progress as a necessary adaptation to shortages of natural resources, especially land, and the truth of this is apparent when considering the Sioux; regardless of whether civilisation was truly in their interests, it was necessary to release their land to those who wished to exploit it. 'Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee' tells the story of this period, and the truth is grim and fascinating; but unfortunately, this is heavy-handed stuff, whose sympathies are always apparent, and marred by wooden acting and lumbering dialogue. In place of naturalism, almost every scene seems specially constructed to demonstrate a specific point of the history; and bizarrely, the story's natural climax is told, not as it happens, but in flashback, squandering the dramatic tension that should have been apparent. Yet in spite of its clumsiness, the film left me wanting to know more of the real history; in that at least it succeeds.

I have no idea whether this is historically accurate, or, if I were a member of (Canada's) First Nations, to embrace or be offended by this portrayal of the time period, which, though the story of one Americanized Indian, is (given the title) really about the plight of America's first peoples and obviously told from a 21st Century perspective. Unlike Clint Eastwood's "Letters from Iwo Jima", it is truly a "white man's" perception. But, like Eastwood's "Outlaw Josey Wales", I was happy to embrace the intended sympathy for the characters. As a Canadian, I was also proud to see Adam Beach and Canada's Prairies represent an American history lesson. And, I must mention that, in addition to excellent cinematography, writing,and direction, what really made the movie for me was the soundtrack by George S. Clinton. Whether you have no interest in the story of this time period, or are finishing a Doctorate in Anthropology, I believe that you will be touched deeply in viewing this film.

This horrifying flick seems to do its best in blurring and romanticizing events so much that way things actually happened becomes romanticed and messed. Which is of course the main reason of the movie. Characters doesn't show most anything from real people, the events are of course 'based on actual guideline', but there's just that something(a lot) which doesn't fit in (too much uncorrectness to mention). Somehow, the Indian characters seem more white that they should (as most are played by Indian) and somehow white characters seem more like bureacrates than actual officers and congressmen. And of course in most conversations them (w.a.s.p.) get the last word. And of course them victims (massacred) weren't saints themselves, and of course them religious movement was actually hoax, and of course all of it happened in more romantic times in distant past. And besides of all these things, the film is actually quite boring. Some credit goes to guidelines in the end of the movie, which at least seem to be correct.

First off, I haven't seen the production of Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. But I read the book. Many years ago. But if this production is true to the book it will be a wake-up call for many. You'll come away knowing exactly what was done to the people of the First Nations. The false promises, outright lies, cruelty, deprivation forced on them. The grief of seeing your wife, husband, father, child...your entire family destroyed. To see land that had sustained your people for eons being taken over and divided up, destroyed, its animal life extinguished with no hope of recovery. And finally, to see the mountains those lands surrounded...mountains sacred to all the tribes and nations of your race...to see the faces of foreign leaders carved into those mountains. Those of you with an ability for true empathy might have an inkling of the despair and hopelessness felt by the people of the First Nations. The majority will feel bad for a short while and then continue with their lives as before. And for some, some will feel a burden on their soul the likes of which you will wish you had never known. You'll learn to live with it. I can promise you that. We whites have an amazing capacity for justifying what our race has done to others and living with its subsequent guilt. But how long can we do that? Injustices done in the past can't be erased. And the injustice to the First Peoples continues to this day. If racial memory is an actuality, how large a burden of guilt can we carry until our collective backs break from its weight?

Having just spent the past 18 months studying Native American philosophy and having just returned from a week at Cherokee, learning the language and culture up close, I can say this film does help express the complex and heart-rending story of the relationship between the invaders and the conquered in our years 1870-1890. For those who have been critical of the film (on this site), I should note from a White Woman's point of view, this is about all that Whites can absorb of the "full" story and emotions as a first contact. Yes, more can be told and should be told. But it's a start. Perhaps this is the beginning of a revival of compassion and cross-cultural understanding. In 1775, Dragging Canoe, a Cherokee, said, "We are not yet conquered." It has taken 200 years. Let's hope he was right.

BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE is a somber retelling of the events leading up to the massacre at (what is now) the Wounded Knee Memorial. But this isn't a documentary. This is a made-for-TV fictional retelling, and it is the "made-for-TV" bit that makes this important American event lose some of its composure. The entire production flags because of the TV aspect, many of the film shots losing their impact either because of lack of attention to detail or funds (or probably both). Either way this could've been an extreme visual recollection for most viewers but instead it lacks the depth I would've liked to have seen. Regardless, there are some stellar appearances and acting within it. August Schellenberg as Sitting Bull undeniably has the most impact. Recent movie viewers will probably remember him from his portrayal as Powhatan in THE NEW WORLD. The contrast between the character in The New World and here in Wounded Knee shouldn't be lost, either. Without Powhatan and Pocahontas, the white settlers at Jamestown would've perished within the first few winters. And now, in Wounded Knee, it is the white man who destroys what is left of Native American life; a terribly stark (and bloody) reality. The other notables are Adam Beach (FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS) as Charles Eastman, and Aidan Quinn as Senator Henry Dawes. They spend a lot of time together on film and they played against/off each other exceptionally well. Charles being the "new wave" Indian who melds into the white man's way of life until exposed to reservation life at Pine Ridge. Henry Dawes seeing himself as "The Great White Savior Of The Indians" by passing legislation that loops a few nooses around the necks of the Plains Indians' way of life without even realizing it. But other actors have little to offer. Anna Paquin (X-MEN) as Charles' white love interest (and eventual wife) is seen too infrequently so the relationship between the two has little impact. She does a good job of acting but the script stymied any possibility of real success. From here the acting dips into the drab and boring. I have to give mention to Senator Fred Thompson (currently a Republican runner for the U.S. Presidency) who plays President Ulysses S. Grant. We see maybe four frames of film with him in it and then he's gone. This surprised me greatly since it was Grant's administration that doomed Native Americans by rounding them up and placing them on reservations. Despite my misgivings about the script, cinematography and acting, this is a vital story that needs to be told, and it isn't something that is normally taught in grade school or higher. Europeans (us) conquered this land and its people, and pushed them into holding pens where they, to this day, await justice for our multiple treaty violations and massacres of their men, women and children (I will say that the scenes depicting large-caliber rifle bullets ripping through young kids was filmed well and was equally hard to watch). So the story gives this film a higher rating than anything within it, which is unfortunate, as this terrible moment in American history needs to be remembered just as much as Germany needs to remember its holocaust.

I remember reading Dee Brown's book when I was about twelve, and being stunned by how powerful and moving it was. So when I saw that HBO was making a movie of Bury My Heart, I was thrilled. And then I actually watched it. Why they chose to take such a complex story and cram it into a two hour movie is beyond me -- they certainly could have made it a miniseries, a la Band of Brothers, or something. All the heart and soul of Brown's book is lost in this movie. And I know Adam Beach is a popular actor if you're casting a movie that calls for young, good looking Native American guys, but he only has two facial expressions: happy or snarly, and that's it. Even Aidan Quinn, whom I normally adore, was totally wooden in this. The magnificent Wes Studi was horribly underused; he appears for about 60 seconds of film. Such a shame that an amazing story had to be turned into a disappointing production.

I have never read the entire book. But the movie, as far as I'm concerned is outstanding. I actually thought it was going to be nothing but gun touting action and a lot of fluff, but the movie does well in showing the accuracies in most of the accounts that happened or would have happened. The movie does a good job showing a more sympathetic side to some of the Americans who actually cared for the Indian's and their interests. But it was also true in showing the ignorance on both sides and lack of understanding what truly needs to be done to attain peace. Another good thing that I loved about this movie was that is showed a more internal/personal conflict with the characters, something rarely see in Indian based movies or historically ones at that. Overall it is an awesome movie that I think, if shown in some of my history classes, would make that subject a lot more interesting. Anyone waiting to see the John Adams movie?